Supposedly, he still can't convince the suits to do Connor/Lizard, as they can't get past the idea of not having a human face on a major villain (which is why Spidey's mask always gets torn up by the end of the films).

I like the fact that Sam Raimi is fighting the studio to get the story and the villain that he wants. Studio suits more often than not don't know squat about creativity or a good story. They want Raimi to shoe-horn the Black Cat into the script. Raimi wants to go on a high note with SM4. I hope he wins his fight! SM3 was such a low-note of a movie due to the studio's insistence in putting Venom in that movie.

I like the fact that Sam Raimi is fighting the studio to get the story and the villain that he wants. Studio suits more often than not don't know squat about creativity or a good story. They want Raimi to shoe-horn the Black Cat into the script. Raimi wants to go on a high note with SM4. I hope he wins his fight! SM3 was such a low-note of a movie due to the studio's insistence in putting Venom in that movie.

I agree to the point that the title for this thread actually bothers me. Raimi knows what he's doing. It's the suits that need to learn the lesson.

SM3 was such a low-note of a movie due to the studio's insistence in putting Venom in that movie.

Adding Venom to the movie certainly brought the quality of the film down, but I don't blame only the studio here. Venom is the most popular villain for Spider Man, at least for the past 20 years or so. His story is one that many want to see put to film. I don't think the studio was wrong for trying to get Raimi to include a character that the audience wanted to see.

At the same time though, Raimi was putting together a story with a specific theme in mind, and adding Venom just didn't work. The studios insisted, and it seems like Raimi just threw his hands up, and ruined the character as a way to "get back" at the studio.

Of course, this is all speculation. But it's clear Raimi did not want to include Venom, he didn't understand the character, and he threw him in at the last minute.

I said it then, and I still believe it now. The right thing to do was write Eddie Brock into the movie, along with the black suit. I think the dual stories of Spidey being corrupted by the power of the black suit and Sandman abusing his power to help his daughter work together nicely. Then, have Spiderman defeat Sandman using the suit, but realize he needs to get rid of it (or something along those lines). Keep the bell tower scene where Spiderman gets rid of the suit, and it finds Eddie Brock who was praying for Parker to be killed. But don't show Venom until the very last shot of the film. Cut to a priest hearing a sound from that chamber. He opens the door and sees something in the shadow. The priests, terrified, asks "Who are you?". Then you hear, "We are Venom" as Venom comes lunging out of the shadows toward the camera.

Maybe Raimi did a script that was a compromise between being allowed to tell his story, but also appeasing the studios, and it was rejected. Either way, fault can't go to solely one party or the other. It's clear they weren't able to reach a solid compromise, so I blame both parties equally.

Logged

Tune in to hear me spout nonsense about Fantasy Football every Thursday evening at 6:08.

SM3 was such a low-note of a movie due to the studio's insistence in putting Venom in that movie.

Adding Venom to the movie certainly brought the quality of the film down, but I don't blame only the studio here. Venom is the most popular villain for Spider Man, at least for the past 20 years or so. His story is one that many want to see put to film. I don't think the studio was wrong for trying to get Raimi to include a character that the audience wanted to see.

At the same time though, Raimi was putting together a story with a specific theme in mind, and adding Venom just didn't work. The studios insisted, and it seems like Raimi just threw his hands up, and ruined the character as a way to "get back" at the studio.

Of course, this is all speculation. But it's clear Raimi did not want to include Venom, he didn't understand the character, and he threw him in at the last minute.

I said it then, and I still believe it now. The right thing to do was write Eddie Brock into the movie, along with the black suit. I think the dual stories of Spidey being corrupted by the power of the black suit and Sandman abusing his power to help his daughter work together nicely. Then, have Spiderman defeat Sandman using the suit, but realize he needs to get rid of it (or something along those lines). Keep the bell tower scene where Spiderman gets rid of the suit, and it finds Eddie Brock who was praying for Parker to be killed. But don't show Venom until the very last shot of the film. Cut to a priest hearing a sound from that chamber. He opens the door and sees something in the shadow. The priests, terrified, asks "Who are you?". Then you hear, "We are Venom" as Venom comes lunging out of the shadows toward the camera.

Maybe Raimi did a script that was a compromise between being allowed to tell his story, but also appeasing the studios, and it was rejected. Either way, fault can't go to solely one party or the other. It's clear they weren't able to reach a solid compromise, so I blame both parties equally.

I like your scenario lots. I think I meant to say, above, that SM3 was a low-note because of 'too many villains' syndrome. Venom would have worked well as the sole villain in SM4 if they had set it up that way.

Personally, what I loved about Spider-Man 2 (which along with TDK and IM is among my favorites) was its singular focus on one villain, and an interesting, simmering sub-plot (Harry Osborn and his father's, well, ghost). I'd say similar about TDK and IM. I also loved that the actor playing Doc Ock wasn't someone you'd expect (Alfred Molina, better known as Indy's traitorous hired help in Raiders of the Lost Ark's beginning sequence), just as I never saw Jeff Bridges as being a comic book villain type for IM but he worked nicely imho.

I'm hoping I'll love Iron Man 2, but the movie smells of stunt-casting (Mickey Rourke!! Scarlett Johansson!!!) and introducing too many characters (Whiplash! War Machine! Black Widow!), and probably not leaving much screen time for the title character or a coherent story. That's what I didn't like about Spider-Man 3, and I'm still not all that convinced Spidey 4 will avoid that particular trap, or that the studio powers-that-be won't force something on Raimi that's against his wishes or better judgement.

Wow. That's awful. Such a dumb move. They'll be begging for Raimi back after this debacle.

I'm not so sure. I can't go back and watch the original Spider Man as it is just a bit too hokey/cartoony, or something. I enjoyed it the first time around, but it could definitely be done better. Two was similar and as a result of that and the bad Venom press, I never saw 3. I can't put my finger on exactly what bothered me to give me those impressions, but it's there.

Hmm, seems like delaying another year for a reboot isn't really a solution for not meeting May 2011. In any case, I think this stinks. While 3 wasn't great, I'm sure I trust Raimi more than most to make the next one.

Here's the press release. I think they have to move on making a movie or the rights go back to Marvel if it sits idle. Good news is that they can do Venom correctly, now.

Quote

Culver City, CA (January 11, 2010) -- Peter Parker is going back to high school when the next Spider-Man hits theaters in the summer of 2012.

Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios announced today they are moving forward with a film based on a script by James Vanderbilt that focuses on a teenager grappling with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises.

The new chapter in the Spider-Man franchise produced by Columbia, Marvel Studios and Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin, will have a new cast and filmmaking team. Spider-Man 4 was to have been released in 2011, but had not yet gone into production.

“A decade ago we set out on this journey with Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire and together we made three Spider-Man films that set a new bar for the genre. When we began, no one ever imagined that we would make history at the box-office and now we have a rare opportunity to make history once again with this franchise. Peter Parker as an ordinary young adult grappling with extraordinary powers has always been the foundation that has made this character so timeless and compelling for generations of fans. We’re very excited about the creative possibilities that come from returning to Peter's roots and we look forward to working once again with Marvel Studios, Avi Arad and Laura Ziskin on this new beginning,” said Amy Pascal, co-chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment.

“Working on the Spider-Man movies was the experience of a lifetime for me. While we were looking forward to doing a fourth one together, the studio and Marvel have a unique opportunity to take the franchise in a new direction, and I know they will do a terrific job,” said Sam Raimi.

“We have had a once-in-a-lifetime collaboration and friendship with Sam and Tobey and they have given us their best for the better part of the last decade. This is a bittersweet moment for us because while it is hard to imagine Spider-Man in anyone else’s hands, I know that this was a day that was inevitable,” said Matt Tolmach, president of Columbia Pictures, who has served as the studio’s chief production executive since the beginning of the franchise. “Now everything begins anew, and that’s got us all tremendously excited about what comes next. Under the continuing supervision of Avi and Laura, we have a clear vision for the future of Spider-Man and can’t wait to share this exciting new direction with audiences in 2012.”

"Spider-Man will always be an important franchise for Sony Pictures and a fresh start like this is a responsibility that we all take very seriously," said Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures. "We have always believed that story comes first and story guides the direction of these films and as we move onto the next chapter, we will stay true to that principle and will do so with the highest respect for the source material and the fans and moviegoers who deserve nothing but the best when it comes to bringing these stories and characters to life on the big screen."

I liked a lot of the first Spider-Man (Maguire and J.K. Simmons primarily) but I don't think it's aged very well and it sort of dies about 2/3 of the way through. Spider-Man 2, though, I passionately love. Magnificent adventure story full of action, great characters, terrific writing, strong drama, and absolutely hysterical (Simmons again). The third film can be summed up by the gif of Maguire gettin' down with his bad self while dressed in black. Yeah, it was really that bad (despite Simmons' best efforts). If they're rebooting the series completely then I agree they should go The Incredible Hulk route and bypass the origin story. Hopefully that's how they're going but since the suits are hell-bent on getting a Spider-Man out in two years, anything is possible. Including more musical numbers, I'm sure.

I used Two Face as an example because DK was a superior movie. I think they could have acheived the same effect Pete mentions without throwing another villain onto the fire. Frankly, it reduced Two-Face's origin to something poignant yet, in the end, meaningless in and of itself. It's a good story-line that could have filled a whole other movie. Additionally, the Joker was such a standout that anything else was a let-down after. This may have been better served by moving the Dent wrap-up to somewhere before the Joker gets captured.

Don't get me wrong, I think DK is a fantastic movie. I don't think Two-Face being in there ruins it, necessarily. I do think some studio head somewhere said, "No, this is a sequel, we need two villains, at least" and they made the best of it. But I also think Two Face got underutilized as a result.

they did have 2 villains in the first movie: Ras al Ghul and Scarecrow.

The new Batman movies thankfully bucked the (incomprehensible) trend of introducing and killing off the main bad guy in each installment.

What an odd choice. They basically had a blockbuster or as close to a sure thing as possible in Hollywood and they tossed it away. I can't imagine suits being willing to take that risk so I bet Rami must have just said FU! and walked because they wouldn't do his story idea.

What an odd choice. They basically had a blockbuster or as close to a sure thing as possible in Hollywood and they tossed it away. I can't imagine suits being willing to take that risk so I bet Rami must have just said FU! and walked because they wouldn't do his story idea.

I've gotten the impression that the studio and Raimi didn't like each other very much. After he went around and blamed the studio for the piss poor story in #3, the thought of starting over probably started to look pretty good to Sony.

As it is, I imagine anything with "Spider Man" in the title is going to have some sort of box office success.

Logged

Tune in to hear me spout nonsense about Fantasy Football every Thursday evening at 6:08.

I just worry a "reboot" will cast Parker as a snotty punk with "edgy" appeal, totally beside the point for the character. I mean, the first Spidey movie came out in 2002, and now they already want to 'reboot' the character?

Chris Nolan and his screenwriters seemed to enjoy carte blanche on their two Batman projects, meaning no studio interference from WB, and no outsiders telling them what kind of Batman story to tell. It's a shame Raimi didn't get the same freedom (assuming the various reports are true). Probably they just didn't trust him not to do a "Spider-Man Evil Dead" mash up.

To me it sounds like reboot might just refer to a production reboot, and not a story reboot. So new script, new actor, new director, new direction, but maybe not going back to the beginning of the franchise plot again.

To me it sounds like reboot might just refer to a production reboot, and not a story reboot. So new script, new actor, new director, new direction, but maybe not going back to the beginning of the franchise plot again.

Well their press release says:

Quote

Columbia Pictures and Marvel Studios announced today they are moving forward with a film based on a script by James Vanderbilt that focuses on a teenager grappling with both contemporary human problems and amazing super-human crises.

So it sounds like they're going back to the beginning. At least to a time before Spider Man 3 timeline ended in.